The YouMoz Blog

Accidentally Awesome Links from Research

This entry was written by one of our members and submitted to our YouMoz section.The author's views below are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of Moz.

Many of you have likely read Google's official post from Matt Cutts and Amit Singhal about how their recent Panda algorithm update was intended to show more high-quality sites, and that research was an important indicator of a high-quality site:

My intuition is that technically, Google actually values the high-quality links that research tends to attract. In a former life, I worked with a small group that conducted two research studies looking at overlap between search engines. Back then our intention was to prove the need for and importance of our metasearch product; some of you may have read the studies. I decided to go back and review them again to see what sort of links they had earned over the years. I was blown away by what I found – we had "accidentally" (I'll explain later) created a ton of high-value links.

It dawned on me that many people could benefit from insights on producing this kind of research. It is challenging to create, but can pay off in significant ways. While this case study happens to focus on a product within the search industry, I think it can be applied in any industry to garner high-quality links and help create a higher-quality site.

Our Goals

Back in 2005 and 2007 we operated metasearch engines and our goal was to get more consumer press to write about the value of metasearch so more people would try and use the product. It was clear we needed to prove our value. We needed third-party validation and proof points. Our solution was to conduct research in conjunction with university researchers and then share the findings, first within our industry, and if industry analysts embraced the research, then the consumer press. We wanted the consumer press to have confidence in our value proposition from the search industry analysts. Since we already had tons of inbound links and terrific site authority, our goal was press mentions and not links. This is why I call the links we did get "accidental."

What We Did & What We Got

The first study was done in 2005 in conjunction with researchers from The Pennsylvania State University and The University of Pittsburgh. This was a terrific collaboration, with everyone contributing ideas, the researchers reviewing the methodology and my group pulling together the data. We also quietly reached out to a few industry analysts before the study to find out what they’d like to see. When it was complete we sent out a press release and briefed several industry analysts, including Chris Sherman and Greg Sterling.

The first study has been offline for a few years (don't make that mistake), yet there are still 36+ links to it from 21+ domains. These are mostly from SEO shops, a few bloggers and a couple highly-rated industry sites such as Search Engine Watch. The 2-3 newspapers and 2-3 universities that I recall linking to us back then have since taken those links down. The study was also submitted to several journals and published by a couple of them. You can read an academic copy of the 2005 study, as published in the journal "Information Processing & Management," or you can still read Chris Sherman's write up. The study was presented at the Third International Conference on Information and Technology. Part of the information was also presented at the 16th International World Wide Web Conference.

The second study was done in 2007 as a follow-up, with help from the same researchers. In this study we wanted to answer some common questions from the first study and measure the changes in the industry since 2005.

The second study is still posted online--albeit on a separate corporate domain from where it resided originally--and then it was moved around on the corporate domain (don't make these link-shedding mistakes either). It still has 163+ links to it from 66+ domains. These include Northwestern University, The Atlantic, and highly-rated sites in the industry such as e-Marketing Performance, Search Engine Guide, Federated Search Blog, Search Engine Journal, Resource Shelf and Web Pro News. There are also several links from other SEO shops and bloggers. Here's Greg Sterling's review.

So, these studies garnered links from universities, newspapers, trade publications, industry analysts, industry consultants and bloggers. And the first one was presented at two international industry conferences. Today, the Google toolbar says the second study’s PDF is a PageRank 6. The PDF! Sweeeet. Imagine if we had focused on links!

The Visualization Study

For both studies, we also created an interactive diagram on the site showcasing the overlap results. Visitors could input any query term and it graphically showcased the differences between the engines. These interactive graphics were well received. The visualization tool is no longer on the site (again, don't make this link-hostile mistake). The university researchers took it upon themselves to conduct a third study on the effectiveness of the visualization tool and you can see a screen shot of the second visualization tool in their paper. Wow, two universities did a research study on our infographic (at the time there was a lot of industry talk about SERP layouts and presentations). I don't think the visualization study got us any links, but it was pretty cool.

What We Didn't Get

While we mostly achieved our goals within the industry (and accidentally got a ton of high-value links), we didn't get the consumer press we really wanted. There was a value proposition showcased, but it was too far removed from consumers to be of much interest to the consumer press. People had a hard time relating it to the real world and connecting overlap with getting better search results.

Learnings

Our research was solid and it addressed an important problem. Working with university researchers proved very fruitful and some of our presentations were very good. Industry analysts generally liked our approach and wanted more. But, we had what I call a "packaging" problem; it wasn't packaged right for the consumer. In our case, we needed to get some data that pertained more to the consumer, such as how our product could find you a better loan or save you time researching healthcare. In other words, something the consumer press could sink their teeth into.

The Art of Packaging

The diagram below illustrates flow from original research on the left through to links on the right. The idea is to do the research once and then develop several information packages or presentations from it. The packaging is where you turn data into information and knowledge. Each package is created with a different audience in mind. In this case, I'm suggesting three separate presentation packages, each of which could include almost anything (videos, infographics, white papers, interviews, tweets, press releases, blog posts, etc), for three separate audiences:

Analyst Package - for analysts and researchers, this will be fairly technical and might include backup data. You have to defend your methodology and the soundness of your data.

Industry Package – for people in the industry. They understand your business but need to be convinced you are showcasing something worthwhile. Your peers can be tough critics.

Consumer Press – for people who produce content for broader consumption. They need to know what's in it for their audience.

The outreach part is where you put your great information to work by showcasing it. Make presentations. Do guest blogs. Present it at trade shows. Socialize it. Make presentations to analysts. Present it to editors. Work it until there's nobody left to work. Then retweet everything.

Tips & Ideas for Your Industry

You might be thinking, well this is nice if you happen to be promoting a search engine, but what about my retail clients? Is it realistic to think a university would link to a Shop for Home Furnishings page? Frankly no, they likely won't link to a product-listing page, but they would certainly link to a page(s) that provides important information. Showcase your research on your site and the high-value links it receives will boost your domain authority and position the site as important.

Ask yourself if there is some research you could do that would:

Uncover hidden industry trends

Uncover hidden consumer trends

Explore consumer attitudes

Explore consumer behavior

If you want to engage university researchers, I suggest looking for academics who publish regularly around the topic you want to explore. Professors need to publish and if you can help them by doing some of the work, perhaps including resources or providing industry data they can't readily access (they crave real world data), then you will often find they can be very cooperative. Be sure to match the academic to your goals. If you want to explore consumer behavior, for instance, you might look for sociologists. If your industry is eco-related, then you might want to look for academics in alternative energy.

This isn't for the faint-hearted. This kind of research takes a lot of time and work. You'll need to involve people in all facets of your business, from public relations to legal to engineering. You'll need to do smart research. This is the cost of creating a high-quality site. I believe it is well worth it.

I'd love to hear your ideas for research related to shopping. What shopping topics do you think would make great research?

Greg is a co-founder of StylishHome, a site providing tools, design insights, and community, as well as all the best stores and sales in one place to help design aficionados outfit their homes.

As DejanSEO mentioned above, you're already putting in more effort than your competitors. Those two links in the article above are going to be very powerful in your link profile. Getting links from .edu pages can be hard, as can getting links from SEOmoz. Just because one is a .org, and one is a .edu, there are no real differences. Trust levels are the same.

To continue your link building, I'd reccommend writing yet another post on the topic. Perhaps document your link building efforts with traffic / ranking stats. I just read a post by Rand about including user generated questionnaire content. It might be a good read and give you some ideas for another post!

Very good post. I would say the posts at SEOMoz that are about their research certainly get the most attentions, comments and thumbs up. People like to see research and this industry responds very well to it.

Media is a big topic in academics right now, so doing media research about how users interact with the Internet could do really well based on what you are talking about. Studying media consumption and usage could get the attention of academic researchers for sure.

Good post. My overall theory of website content is that you need to be different, somehow, in some way, from the other sites out there on the web. And your content should be difficult for others to replicate. Research like that described in this post certainly fills the bill.

"This isn't for the faint-hearted. This kind of research takes a lot of time and work." Exactly. Its a different mindset from that of the content farm publishers, who hire freelance writers for a few dollars per article. A lot of those publishers got burned in Panda, and I can't feel too sorry for them. Quality is the way to go for the long run.